C. lueddemanniana

[Ozpaph]

Thank-you all for the informative discussion.
So, what should I call it??????

 

[terryros]

Is the column configuration completely specific for lueddemanniana but not completely sensitive? If you see it, you know it is lueddemanniana but if it is lacking it might still be lueddemannia? My human medicine mind keeps looking for pathognomonic findings that always mean something. The uncertainty with Cattleya species identification is frustrating and I think it will be a long time before there are routine genetic studies to resolve differences.

 

[big923cattleya]

Well I am unsure as to what my answer should be.
I am not a taxonomic expert but I had enough experience in floral identications to remember that when looking at species working your way through a flower or species key, you work your way through the key with a series of steps or choices. If not this, then it is this. And then that step or decision leads you to a couple of other choices or species. My minor in College was Botany. Plant taxonomy specifically.
I would have to look at an identification key to know exactly where lueddemanniana fits it and what are it’s closely related relatives. I will have to see if I might find such a key in my half ton of orchid books and papers. I will report back if I find anything.
Have you consulted Carl Withner’s series of volumes on Cattleyas, Laelias etc. That is where I am going to start.
Then I will try orchidspecies.com because I know that they go through detailed taxonomic information.

 

[terryros]

I was worried that it was that complicated! No wonder we have controversy’s about Cattleya species and hybrids.

 

[NEslipper]

I respectfully disagree I think. As judges, we are not really taxonomists in a sense.
As a team if I am presented with a plant that I suspect is, or is not, Cattleya lueddemanniana, we discus it amongst the team. If no one on the team is a Cattleya species person capable of assuring us that it is a lueddemanniana we can ‘pass’ on the plant. We can also say politely that we may have liked the plant but we suspect that the ID is wrong. Could they please get in contact with the proper Taxonomist and get it ID’d. Then in the future that particular plant has a proper ID that can follow the plant around. Or we can pass it to another team at judging that day.
We as judges generally as a rule, 99.9% of the time have to judge what we see at that moment. We can’t imagine what the plant looked like two days ago. Or what it might look like tomorrow or next week.
But this is exactly what the 6-10 year training period is for!!!
The overall shape of the flower, the size, the patterning to the lip tells me it is, or is not, a lueddemanniana. The “horns” do not enter into my consideration when it comes to scoring that plant. Not one bit.
The Cattleya score sheet provides 5 points for the lip. If the lip is perfect, full, beautifully colored, in proportion to the rest of the flower I might score it in my head as 4.5 points. Out of 5 total points, what could I possibly deduct for short horns? .2 of a point. Now we start to get too far off track.

Now if we score something labeled as lueddemanniana but a single judge on the team is not convinced, we can have the award declared provisional. It is held in ‘limbo’ for at least a year until it is properly identified. If it is, then the award goes forward. The Judging Center Chair has the power to do that.
We judge Cattleyas based on 100 points. So many for Form, Size, Color, floriferousness etc. but there is no place on the form to score for horns. That hopefully, I have shown is a taxonomic issue, not a flower quality award issue.

Interesting discussion here. I’m just a hobby grower, but wouldn’t you want a definitive ID before scoring? Standards between different species can be quite different. A highly awardable dowiana is going to have quite different shape/fullness compared with a lavender trianaei. Additionally, do you compare a plant with previous awards to a species when scoring?

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Thank-you all for the informative discussion.
So, what should I call it??????

If you are growing is for flowers and shows, it is lueddiemanniana semialba flamea "Cerro Verde' AM/AOS.

If you intend to breed with it, it should be Gravesiana 'Cerro Verde' aka (lueddemanniana x mossiae).

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Is the column configuration completely specific for lueddemanniana but not completely sensitive? If you see it, you know it is lueddemanniana but if it is lacking it might still be lueddemannia? My human medicine mind keeps looking for pathognomonic findings that always mean something. The uncertainty with Cattleya species identification is frustrating and I think it will be a long time before there are routine genetic studies to resolve differences.

The purist judges will check for this column wings to confirm ID, esp. in South America.

In the US, sometimes this may not be evident enough based on limited experiences, it can be awarded as lueddie and sent to SITF (Species ID Task Force) for confirmation (esp. as Bill mentioned that as long as one judge questions the ID, particularly if the flower looks odd or 'wrong' for the particular species).

 

[big923cattleya]

No, we do not.
When faced with a species, say lueddemanniana, we compare it first to other awarded lueddemannianas.
When faced with a hybrid, say Phragmipedium Don Wimber, we compare it to other awarded Don Wimbers. We start in both cases by comparing the candidate before us with the most recent awards. We would start with awards of 2022 and 2021 and work our way backwards in need be.
When we are faced with a new hybrid, say C. Hockey Puck x C. Soccer Ball, we look and see if the hybrid has been registered. If it is and it has a single award say from 2 years ago, that’s where we make our comparison.

That above scenario happens quite often.
Now what happens too is that C. Hockey Puck x C. Soccer Ball has NOT been registered and there are no previous awards. We might even find a hybrid name, but no awards have been granted. Images may even exist, but there are no awards.
Here is where we need to bear down. We look at the parents, we look at the candidate, what traits does the unnamed offspring show? Does the offspring show improvement over one, or both of the parents.
We are working on moving quality and judging standards forward. Not backwards.

If we are looking at a species, let us pretend it is Cattleya labiata and there are no awards for it on the record. And yes, I know that that is not the case. We would not look at other awards for Cattleya lueddemanniana. Those are for lueddemanniana, not for labiata. Labiata is a completely different species. We compare like plants to like plants, not to similar plants.

Of course we would like a definite, 100% correct and valid ID, a no doubt in our mind feeling, but that does not always happen. This is especially true with very similar and closely related species. AND remember, if any judge on any given team has their doubts about the true identity of a species, that judge can ask for an ID from a noted taxonomist. The award, if granted, is held as a provisional award pending valid ID.
This used to happen a lot in the Northeast Judging Center. It happened often with smaller species, things within Pleurothallis, Maxillaria, Lepanthes, etc. But back in those days, 1995-2008 or so, when an ID would come back, it would be Lepanthes tiny. We awarded it though as Lepanthes teenytiny. We could, if there is agreement and no previous award to L. tiny! The award was then simply changed to teeny tiny. It just takes a majority vote of the judging center personnel.

There are not different standards for different species. That would require a HUGE stockpile of paperwork and is frankly pointless. We just evaluate according to the accepted point scale for the major orchid groups. We judge for color, form, size and floriferousness to put it simply.
Look at AKC standards. German Shepard’s are judged against German Shepards, not Belgian malinois.

 

[big923cattleya]

We do not concern ourselves with what “purist” judges do in Brazil, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, or Germany.
We judge by accepted AOS standards!!
There is no such thing as a purist judge.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

We do not concern ourselves with what “purist” judges do in Brazil, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, or Germany.
We judge by accepted AOS standards!!
There is no such thing as a purist judge.

I beg to differ and have a different perspective.

The purist judges I’m referring to are judges who know the species well such as those in South America who know their cattleya species well. We could learn a lot from them. Some even write books, articles and journals we read, or listen to their lectures. An example is Olaf Grus (or Chadwick or Mantellini). And I learn much from them when I travel, esp to Colombia and Japan to judge, or to the World Orchid Conferences (whose judging system is different from the AOS).

The AOS standard is an ever evolving thing and standards around the world should be taken into account to see what else is being shown elsewhere and been awarded. Or else we would only be narrow minded to only plants blooming in US and AOS sanctioned shows. We must respect and not dismiss other judging systems around the world and their awards. They may show a hybrid that was not awarded yet by AOS, and can be used as a reference.

Of course, you’re right, at the end of the day, we compare only what’s in the AOS registry of awards and used those as standards to score the flower in front of us. But the knowledge that one knows from the experiences and travels help in those assessments.

 

[Ozpaph]

Thnaks Leslie. Ill label as both - its not for breeding.

 

[big923cattleya]

When it comes to judging at AOS sponsored shows and events, that’s what we are trained to do, look to compare plants within the AOS system. That is pretty cut and dry.
Some of the International experts have become taxonomic experts for the AOS but that can often be as far as it goes.
I am sure that experts across the world know their species. Probably far better then most of us do here but we are talking about ID’s of a species. In fact the AOS is beginning to attempt to attract foreign judges into the AOS system as judges. But that system is not confined to species. How would you rate these experts on hybrid evaluations? I have no idea off hand.
I just know what rules that I as an AOS judge must follow.

Yes, the AOS standards are constantly moving forward. Those have been evolving since 1932. That is when this all started. At least I think it was 1932. That’s 90 years ago.
I myself have seen these standards go noticeably forward in the 27 years that I have been a judge.